Matt Taibbi Discusses the Modern News Media: An Industry that Fuels Hate for Profit.

The Profitable Siloed-Audience Business Model of Modern "News." Matt Taibbi explains how we got to this point, based on his book, Hate, Inc.

They want to make sure that they can wind you up as much as they can—not just every day, but in the internet era, there's a commercial imperative now to do this every hour, every minute, really every second. It's a moment-to-moment competition and the only way to really compete is to keep riling people up as much as much as you can. They use that CRossfire formula of constant combat to attract audiences and to keep them and addict them to this experience and this can be very damaging to people's mental health, to say nothing of what it does to society.

As a parting thought, I want to leave you all with this idea to recognize that when you watch the news, most people think of this as a public service and in some cases it is. But you really have to understand that it's also a consumer product very much in the same way that blue jeans or cigarettes or twinkies are news products and there are properties that we use to sell our product in the same way that those other kinds of consumer businesses use to sell theirs and what we've learned is that division is the thing that sells most in this current era and you have to understand that just as cigarettes or twinkies can be bad for you the news can also be bad for you. It can be bad for your mental health. It can be addicting in the same way that those products are. So please understand that from our point of view, we've gone from being something that was a business more in the direction of being just about delivering information to being very consumer-oriented, in the current incarnation, and much more about audience and demographic targeting.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi Discusses the Modern News Media: An Industry that Fuels Hate for Profit.

Princeton University Posing as a Critic

Excerpt of "Letter from Princeton Open Campus Coalition to Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber":

When university administrators speak officially on controversial matters of social importance, they must be cognizant of the fact that––as faculty at the University of Chicago recognized at the height of the Vietnam War––“[t]he university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”[1] If the university itself becomes the critic––which occurs when administrators qua administrators opine on controversial issues not bearing a tangible impact on the university’s ability to function––it diminishes the openness of an academic climate that would otherwise invite dissenters to engage boldly with their peers and colleagues. This truth led the University of Chicago’s Kalven Committee to recognize that institutional neutrality enables the “fullest freedom of its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action…” [2] We believe that the institutional neutrality principle, so articulated, reasonably restricts university officials’ speaking in their official capacities.

Unfortunately, recent events at our University suggest that the neutrality principle has been dangerously dishonored. In the case of Dean Jamal’s November 20th statement regarding the Rittenhouse verdict, the significant factual errors (while embarrassing) are not the cause of our protest. [3] What motivates our letter is a concern about the implications of a University administrator, speaking in her official capacity, promulgating to an entire community of students her moral evaluation of the outcome of a highly publicized and controversial trial. Her doing so in effect places SPIA’s institutional support behind a particular position on a matter which, as it engages the interests of so many, should invite a vigorous and respectful conversation amongst students and faculty alike.

Instead, students and faculty are left to read that a Dean has adopted a definitive stance on a matter about which reasonable people of good will can and do disagree. Dean Jamal writes with a “heavy heart” as she decries the “incomprehensib[ility]” of a not-guilty verdict, labels the defendant a “minor vigilante,” and situates the alleged outrageousness of the trial’s outcome within the broader context of racial inequalities pervading “nearly every strand of the American fabric.”

Each of these features––the verdict, the alleged vigilantism, and the systemic racism claim––are the subjects of genuine debate among serious legal commentators and academics. Contrary to Dean Jamal’s forceful assessment that some of these issues––viz., the systemic racism allegation––are settled “without a doubt,” these topics occupy the debates of students, faculty, and the public at large. Though no one claims that Dean Jamal’s statement directly forces dissenting students to remain silent or to affirm what they do not believe, it is no stretch to conclude that the establishment of an institutional position tends to draw restrictive parameters around a dialogue that would be otherwise unfettered.

[Emphasis added]

Continue ReadingPrinceton University Posing as a Critic

The Story Behind the Iconic Photo of the Man Who Refused to Salute Hitler

I've seen this iconic photo periodically. It has always inspired me. I keep a copy of the image file on my desktop, and I periodically look at it and feel intense emotions.  Until today, however, I didn't know the story about the man refusing to salute Hitler.  I didn't know what happened to him.

[caption id="attachment_34346" align="aligncenter" width="792"] Employees of the shipyard Blohm und Vow from Hamburg gathered for the launch of the training ship 'Horst Wessel' and demonstrate the Nazi salute with the raised right arm. One worker in the right half of the picture denied it and crosses his arms in a defiant gesture - also a kind of resistance. The name of the worker is August Landmesser., 01.01.1936-31.12.1936[/caption]

Here is the opening paragraph of the story behind the photo from Wikipedia:

August Landmesser ([ˈaʊ̯ɡʊst ˈlantˌmɛsɐ]; 24 May 1910 – 17 October 1944) was a worker at the Blohm+Voss shipyard in Hamburg, Germany. He became known as the possible identity of a man appearing in a 1936 photograph, conspicuously refusing to perform the Nazi salute with the other workers.[2][3] Landmesser had run afoul of the Nazi Party over his unlawful relationship with Irma Eckler, a Jewish woman. Later he was imprisoned, and eventually drafted into penal military service, where he was killed in action.

The Wikipedia article continues on and it is a story that is jarring, inexcusable, horrid. This is what can happen when bullies bring terror up a group (or nation) of people, causing them to form a destructive tribe.  There are millions of stories of the Nazi regime, but August's photo allows him to visually inspire the rest of us.  If only most of us had the guts and integrity to stand up to 1% of the social pressure and the danger that he faced. I wonder whether this photo was used in the case against him, or if his sin of falling in love with a Jewish woman (Irma) was more than enough evidence for his persecutors. Bullies don't need much evidence.  Actually, they don't need any evidence.

August's non-salute proves that one can stand up to massive social pressure to succumb.  The salutes of everyone else in this photo is evidence of something else, what what?  Is it that most people are sheep?  Is it that most people stop thinking when under social pressure, thus acting out Hannah Arendt's idea of the banality of evil?  Or did most people, at some early glimpse of trouble, decide to stop thinking? Or did most people knowingly live hypocritical lives day after day, laying low, passively hoping that the entire thing would wash over and that they and their families would emerge intact, though compromised?

This photo of August Landmesser inspires me, reminding me that nothing I ever face will compare to what he faced.  If he could stand up to the Nazi's, I will never have any excuse for failing to speak what I believe to be truth, no matter how upset people around me are getting.  August Landmesser's photo is an excellent reason for being the first one in the room to stand up and tell the mob that you disagree with them. 

Continue ReadingThe Story Behind the Iconic Photo of the Man Who Refused to Salute Hitler

A Growing Collection: News Media Not Wanting Us to Know Important Things

I will be adding items to this list, apparently for a long time. I was provoked to create this list after reading Andrew Sullivan's collection of topics that the left-leaning news media works hard to not cover. I'll begin this list up here in a post and then continue adding items in the comments.

This list begins today, with this entry by Batya Ungar-Sargon coupled with this NYP article, "Journalists today aren’t muckrakers — they are defenders of the liberal elite":

[Added Dec 5, 2021]

They treat us like toddlers who are incapable of hearing the facts and coming to our own conclusions.

Glenn Greenwald:

In the last 18 months, US political discourse has been mass-censored over significant issues based on 2 lies:

1) The Biden email archive was "Russian disinformation."

2) The Science™ had proven COVID was zoonotic rather than from a lab.

Both lies led to widespread repression.

Continue ReadingA Growing Collection: News Media Not Wanting Us to Know Important Things

A Few Questions about Race

I enthusiastically support Glenn Loury's Substack. He often discusses race issues with John McWhorter. Glenn invited questions for their upcoming question and answer session. Here is my question. I hope they have time to address it on their Q & A:

Here’s a hypothetical for the two of you.

Assume that God visits the United States next Tuesday. After sizing things up, God performs a miracle. He/She/They decide to make it impossible for anyone to know the “race” of anyone else. There are no longer any physical or historical ways to determine the “race” of any people you meet. Two questions: What % of people would like this new world? What % would be distressed because they no longer have a quick proxy for judging the character of others? I suspect that some people doing DEI work will get upset because they will lose their jobs. Some people will get busy trying to determine new immutable characteristics upon which to judge the characteristics of other people—perhaps astrology and phrenology theories will again flourish. In the midst of all this panic, distress and commotion of this non-racial reckoning, the news media reports that someone (race unknown) murders 15 people (race unknown). Many people watching the news reports don’t know whether to give a shit in the absence of “racial” information.

Continue ReadingA Few Questions about Race